UK, Italy, France quality decline, now poorer than all 50 states

[Anonymous]

They are all far richer than we are, they have free education childcare elder care and healthcare.
Whoever thinks we are better off is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

French median income is 23k euros a year, or $27,000. American median income is $63,000. Median means half make more, half makes less.

Income is a narrow measure. Life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the USA and 9 years higher than in Alabama and France has much higher literacy than the USA (#PaulKrugman). They also have far more vacation time and mandated parental leave of approximately 1 year where the USA has none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--you're pretty quick to adopt sweeping conclusions without thinking too much. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had a long article about why this conclusion about Europe isn't accurate from his view.

#PaulKrugman
But how accurate is this perception of European underperformance? While there are valid reasons to be concerned about Europe’s future, the trash talk reflects ignorance of the real issues. And even economically sophisticated, Draghi-type discussions are, I would argue, misleading. Europe is simply not poor the way Mississippi is poor. Moreover, by many measures — arguably the most important measures — Europe is, in fact, keeping up with the United States.

Does Europe have a lower standard of living than the U.S?

When comparing the economic performance of various countries, economists often begin with measures of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity. GDP is the total value of goods and services produced in a country, and GDP per capita is a relevant measure of the country’s overall standard of living. “Purchasing power parity” (PPP) corrects for differences in national price levels, which is especially important because fluctuations in exchange rates between currencies, such as the relative values of the dollar and the euro, can cause temporary fluctuations in measured GDP that have nothing to do with underlying economic performance.

Here is PPP GDP per capita in the three big European Union economies as a percentage of the United States over the past 25 years:


Chart 1

European economies do produce less per person than the U.S. does. Indeed, as many observers have pointed out, France and Italy have GDP per capita comparable to poor U.S. states like Alabama:


Chart 2

But let’s step back for a moment and ask: how reasonable is it to compare the economic performance of France, and Europe in general, with the poorest states in America?

Let’s start with impressions: France definitely doesn’t look or feel as poor as Alabama or Mississippi. Granted, subjective impressions are no substitute for hard data. But the “walking around test” isn’t worthless, either. If the look and feel of an economy don’t match up with the story told by standard numbers, that’s at least a gut check, a reason to look for the sources of the dissonance.

More substantively, nonmonetary comparisons between Europe and the United States are unlike the usual comparisons when one stacks poor nations against a richer country. Consider the following items:

· Globally, rich nations normally have higher life expectancy than poor nations. But life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the United States — and 9 years higher than in Alabama

· The overall US literacy rate is well below rates in other wealthy nations, and far below levels in Europe

· While the US and China dominate most information technology industries, with Europe a distant third — more on that later — access to and use of IT are basically comparable in the US and Europe

Understand that I’m not saying that the GDP numbers are wrong. What I am saying, however, is that the story “Europe is poor” is misleading.

A clearly important issue that is not captured by GDP per capita comparisons is income inequality, which is much higher in the US than in Europe. It is arithmetically inescapable that the high share of US income going to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent renders most Americans worse off than the overall high level of GDP per capita would indicate.

However, quantifying this effect is, to be frank, a statistical can of worms, especially because some important goods and services — notably health care — are mainly government-provided in Europe while a significant share is privately-provided in the United States. My colleagues at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, who are experts on the topic of income inequality, are not convinced by some widely cited analyses of this issue. So for now, I will simply assert that the role of income inequality in underestimating the performance of Europe versus the US is an important component, but one to which I can’t put exact numbers.

Finally, if we look at the sources of low GDP per capita, they are very different in Europe than in poor U.S. states.

More than 30 years ago I wrote that “productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.” Nations become rich by increasing labor productivity — real GDP per hour worked. So you might assume that relatively low GDP per capita in Europe compared with the US is mainly a result of Europeans’ relatively low productivity.

But that’s a mistaken inference. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated productivity for a number of countries, with estimates that are similar to those from other sources. Here’s how those numbers for Germany and France, plus my own calculation for Alabama, compare with GDP per capita:


Chart 3

At 85.7%, per capita GDP in Germany is nearly 14 percent lower than the US average, yet German productivity, at 96.7%, almost matches US productivity. Thus the productivity gap explains only a little more than a fifth of the GDP gapin the case of Germany. French per capita GDP is 27 percent lower than in the US, but French productivity is only slightly lower than German productivity. Therefore, the productivity gap explains less than a third of the GDP gap in the case of France.

What do these numbers mean? They mean that head-to-head comparisons of GDP per capita are misleading without also understanding comparisons of labor productivity. While Europe has lower GDP per capita than the U.S., its labor productivity is relatively close to that of the U.S. What explains this divergence?

The answer is that America is the “no-vacation nation.” Historically, Americans were more like Europeans, taking part of the gains from productivity growth in the form of shorter work hours. But that process stopped after around 1970. Europeans, however, do take vacations, and as a result work fewer hours per year. This means lower GDP, but with the offsetting benefit of more personal time.

In short, lower European GDP per capita can be viewed largely not as a problem but as a choice — a choice to spend less time working but more time on other things. Which side of the Atlantic is making the right choice? I’ll leave that up to readers.

By contrast, poor U.S. states are poor not because of lifestyle choices but because they have low productivity. The productivity gap between Alabamians and other Americans explains more than three-quarters of Alabama’s low GDP per capita compared with the U.S. national average.

As I said, then, while GDP comparisons aren’t wrong, they can be misleading: Europe isn’t poor the same way that Alabama or Mississippi are poor. On the whole we should think of Europeans as being as competent at producing goods and services as Americans, but with lower monetary income because they’ve made different choices about how to use their time. Thus it’s misleading to conclude that Europeans have a clearly lower standard of living than Americans when they have essentially just made different choices.

There's decent observations in the article, which is more than I'd expect from someone like Paul Krugman, who has a lifetime of spin and crap forever riding on his Nobel despite also being an advisor to Enron and has been mocked by serious economists for his partisanship. You can summarize it, and the posts on this thread, by saying the following:

1. The American and European economic consensus are not the same. Americans, by consensus, have always accepted that the bottom 20% of American society will be poor and will never receive the kind of wealth transfer or benefits that European countries established for their poor with the post WWII consensus. Americans, by consensus, have decided people must have greater ownership of their economic decisions across their life and rely less on the state.

2. The trade off is a far more dynamic American economic machine with far fewer regulations and lower taxes, which means the upper 20% of American society is significantly richer than their European counterparts. Americans also historically have had lower unemployment and dynamic labor market, with both layoffs and hiring more easily done.

3. The middle class tit for tat is a bit harder to measure, with clear winners and losers on both sides for different metrics. The American middle class wins in terms of material lifestyle measured by higher salaries, accumulatiuon of good and services and housing quality (especally size) and ownership, European (Western at least) can win with better (or free) national healthcare and inexpensive higher education (though the UK is a distinct outlier in the latter, being more costly for higher education re debt burdens of a typical grad). Europeans can be argued for a better quality social life, with more tightly planned communities compared to the sprawling American suburbs, but this is also subjective.

4. Europeans have historically done better on health metrics compared to Americans but this is probably distorted by American's historic diversity over European homogenity. This may change for Europe in the future as the continent rapidly diversifies and the elderly Europeans are the whitest demographics.

5. Most Europeans still get up in the morning, go to work/school, come home in the evening, have dinner, socialize with family and friends. Not terribly different from Americans. But Europeans generally had earlier retirement, and accepted a larger permanently unemployed on benefits class (UK infamous for this as well) that may distort the perception of European leisure.

Last, but not least, I suspect some of you are relying too much on stereotypes for European QoL from the past. The continent is rapidly changing, economically, culturally, even politically, making numbers and metrics based on studies from even a decade ago a bit unreliable. Right now, based on the last five years at least, the US is the clear winner in terms of economic and salary growth. We can see this, incidentially, in how travel costs have changed in the last generation. 30 years ago Europe was the expensive destination to travel around while the US was affordable. The tables have turned, it's often more expensive to travel around the US than it is to fly to Europe for a vacation. And that, I suspect, tells you what you need to know.

Despite your attempts to dismiss a Nobel prize winner as a partisan hack, Krugman's observations are data driven, which is more than can be said for your observations. Your dismissal of higher life expectancy in Europe as being "Europe has more white people and white people live longer" is inane and disregards that most of the highest life expectancy countries in the world are in Asia and the Pacific.

Are you Paul Krugman? You'd be a fool to ignore he's famous for the inflation is transitional he was parroting during the Biden years. And the "data" is outdated and misleading.

You are also showing your prejudices and biases. Talking about East Asian life expectancy is meaningless when the migrants in Europe are African and Middle Eastern. Are you lying to yourself by ignoring that large scale mass migration to Europe since 2000 is presenting huge social, cultural and even economic challenges for the bloc? And this includes the official stats because, after all, how much of the numbers you report factors in the elusive migrant populations? If you're honest, you'd acknowledge countries like France have big communities of not very productive migrants.

But I've seen enough of your posts to suspect you're someone who sees only the Europe of fancy historic squares and EU office buildings and the Guardian newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Europe did well by colonizing other nations and using their resources. In second phase they did well by using their loot to build museums, buildings, infrastructure and tourist traps to make money that way. They also made money with manufacturing and designer goods China, India and other countries killed that monopoly so need a new money stream now. They did try taking in young migrants but that needs patience as it takes a generation or two to fully assimilate. It would work eventually as they have manpower again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

+1 The USA has become the lawless land for AI, with its declaration that it won't regulate AI for the next 10 years. Meanwhile European jurisdictions are holding American companies to account for violating data privacy and consumer protections.

AI aside.
Do you really want the US to become a socialist country?

The US is socialist- for billionaires. The government continually bails out failing firms and makes the taxpayer pay the bill. Every company continually “enshittifies” their products and services because there is so little competition that they can. Meanwhile those same businesses treat their employees worse and worse.

Does it feel like you live in a dynamic capitalist economy right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--you're pretty quick to adopt sweeping conclusions without thinking too much. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had a long article about why this conclusion about Europe isn't accurate from his view.

#PaulKrugman
But how accurate is this perception of European underperformance? While there are valid reasons to be concerned about Europe’s future, the trash talk reflects ignorance of the real issues. And even economically sophisticated, Draghi-type discussions are, I would argue, misleading. Europe is simply not poor the way Mississippi is poor. Moreover, by many measures — arguably the most important measures — Europe is, in fact, keeping up with the United States.

Does Europe have a lower standard of living than the U.S?

When comparing the economic performance of various countries, economists often begin with measures of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity. GDP is the total value of goods and services produced in a country, and GDP per capita is a relevant measure of the country’s overall standard of living. “Purchasing power parity” (PPP) corrects for differences in national price levels, which is especially important because fluctuations in exchange rates between currencies, such as the relative values of the dollar and the euro, can cause temporary fluctuations in measured GDP that have nothing to do with underlying economic performance.

Here is PPP GDP per capita in the three big European Union economies as a percentage of the United States over the past 25 years:


Chart 1

European economies do produce less per person than the U.S. does. Indeed, as many observers have pointed out, France and Italy have GDP per capita comparable to poor U.S. states like Alabama:


Chart 2

But let’s step back for a moment and ask: how reasonable is it to compare the economic performance of France, and Europe in general, with the poorest states in America?

Let’s start with impressions: France definitely doesn’t look or feel as poor as Alabama or Mississippi. Granted, subjective impressions are no substitute for hard data. But the “walking around test” isn’t worthless, either. If the look and feel of an economy don’t match up with the story told by standard numbers, that’s at least a gut check, a reason to look for the sources of the dissonance.

More substantively, nonmonetary comparisons between Europe and the United States are unlike the usual comparisons when one stacks poor nations against a richer country. Consider the following items:

· Globally, rich nations normally have higher life expectancy than poor nations. But life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the United States — and 9 years higher than in Alabama

· The overall US literacy rate is well below rates in other wealthy nations, and far below levels in Europe

· While the US and China dominate most information technology industries, with Europe a distant third — more on that later — access to and use of IT are basically comparable in the US and Europe

Understand that I’m not saying that the GDP numbers are wrong. What I am saying, however, is that the story “Europe is poor” is misleading.

A clearly important issue that is not captured by GDP per capita comparisons is income inequality, which is much higher in the US than in Europe. It is arithmetically inescapable that the high share of US income going to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent renders most Americans worse off than the overall high level of GDP per capita would indicate.

However, quantifying this effect is, to be frank, a statistical can of worms, especially because some important goods and services — notably health care — are mainly government-provided in Europe while a significant share is privately-provided in the United States. My colleagues at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, who are experts on the topic of income inequality, are not convinced by some widely cited analyses of this issue. So for now, I will simply assert that the role of income inequality in underestimating the performance of Europe versus the US is an important component, but one to which I can’t put exact numbers.

Finally, if we look at the sources of low GDP per capita, they are very different in Europe than in poor U.S. states.

More than 30 years ago I wrote that “productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.” Nations become rich by increasing labor productivity — real GDP per hour worked. So you might assume that relatively low GDP per capita in Europe compared with the US is mainly a result of Europeans’ relatively low productivity.

But that’s a mistaken inference. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated productivity for a number of countries, with estimates that are similar to those from other sources. Here’s how those numbers for Germany and France, plus my own calculation for Alabama, compare with GDP per capita:


Chart 3

At 85.7%, per capita GDP in Germany is nearly 14 percent lower than the US average, yet German productivity, at 96.7%, almost matches US productivity. Thus the productivity gap explains only a little more than a fifth of the GDP gapin the case of Germany. French per capita GDP is 27 percent lower than in the US, but French productivity is only slightly lower than German productivity. Therefore, the productivity gap explains less than a third of the GDP gap in the case of France.

What do these numbers mean? They mean that head-to-head comparisons of GDP per capita are misleading without also understanding comparisons of labor productivity. While Europe has lower GDP per capita than the U.S., its labor productivity is relatively close to that of the U.S. What explains this divergence?

The answer is that America is the “no-vacation nation.” Historically, Americans were more like Europeans, taking part of the gains from productivity growth in the form of shorter work hours. But that process stopped after around 1970. Europeans, however, do take vacations, and as a result work fewer hours per year. This means lower GDP, but with the offsetting benefit of more personal time.

In short, lower European GDP per capita can be viewed largely not as a problem but as a choice — a choice to spend less time working but more time on other things. Which side of the Atlantic is making the right choice? I’ll leave that up to readers.

By contrast, poor U.S. states are poor not because of lifestyle choices but because they have low productivity. The productivity gap between Alabamians and other Americans explains more than three-quarters of Alabama’s low GDP per capita compared with the U.S. national average.

As I said, then, while GDP comparisons aren’t wrong, they can be misleading: Europe isn’t poor the same way that Alabama or Mississippi are poor. On the whole we should think of Europeans as being as competent at producing goods and services as Americans, but with lower monetary income because they’ve made different choices about how to use their time. Thus it’s misleading to conclude that Europeans have a clearly lower standard of living than Americans when they have essentially just made different choices.

There's decent observations in the article, which is more than I'd expect from someone like Paul Krugman, who has a lifetime of spin and crap forever riding on his Nobel despite also being an advisor to Enron and has been mocked by serious economists for his partisanship. You can summarize it, and the posts on this thread, by saying the following:

1. The American and European economic consensus are not the same. Americans, by consensus, have always accepted that the bottom 20% of American society will be poor and will never receive the kind of wealth transfer or benefits that European countries established for their poor with the post WWII consensus. Americans, by consensus, have decided people must have greater ownership of their economic decisions across their life and rely less on the state.

2. The trade off is a far more dynamic American economic machine with far fewer regulations and lower taxes, which means the upper 20% of American society is significantly richer than their European counterparts. Americans also historically have had lower unemployment and dynamic labor market, with both layoffs and hiring more easily done.

3. The middle class tit for tat is a bit harder to measure, with clear winners and losers on both sides for different metrics. The American middle class wins in terms of material lifestyle measured by higher salaries, accumulatiuon of good and services and housing quality (especally size) and ownership, European (Western at least) can win with better (or free) national healthcare and inexpensive higher education (though the UK is a distinct outlier in the latter, being more costly for higher education re debt burdens of a typical grad). Europeans can be argued for a better quality social life, with more tightly planned communities compared to the sprawling American suburbs, but this is also subjective.

4. Europeans have historically done better on health metrics compared to Americans but this is probably distorted by American's historic diversity over European homogenity. This may change for Europe in the future as the continent rapidly diversifies and the elderly Europeans are the whitest demographics.

5. Most Europeans still get up in the morning, go to work/school, come home in the evening, have dinner, socialize with family and friends. Not terribly different from Americans. But Europeans generally had earlier retirement, and accepted a larger permanently unemployed on benefits class (UK infamous for this as well) that may distort the perception of European leisure.

Last, but not least, I suspect some of you are relying too much on stereotypes for European QoL from the past. The continent is rapidly changing, economically, culturally, even politically, making numbers and metrics based on studies from even a decade ago a bit unreliable. Right now, based on the last five years at least, the US is the clear winner in terms of economic and salary growth. We can see this, incidentially, in how travel costs have changed in the last generation. 30 years ago Europe was the expensive destination to travel around while the US was affordable. The tables have turned, it's often more expensive to travel around the US than it is to fly to Europe for a vacation. And that, I suspect, tells you what you need to know.

Despite your attempts to dismiss a Nobel prize winner as a partisan hack, Krugman's observations are data driven, which is more than can be said for your observations. Your dismissal of higher life expectancy in Europe as being "Europe has more white people and white people live longer" is inane and disregards that most of the highest life expectancy countries in the world are in Asia and the Pacific.

Are you Paul Krugman? You'd be a fool to ignore he's famous for the inflation is transitional he was parroting during the Biden years. And the "data" is outdated and misleading.

You are also showing your prejudices and biases. Talking about East Asian life expectancy is meaningless when the migrants in Europe are African and Middle Eastern. Are you lying to yourself by ignoring that large scale mass migration to Europe since 2000 is presenting huge social, cultural and even economic challenges for the bloc? And this includes the official stats because, after all, how much of the numbers you report factors in the elusive migrant populations? If you're honest, you'd acknowledge countries like France have big communities of not very productive migrants.

But I've seen enough of your posts to suspect you're someone who sees only the Europe of fancy historic squares and EU office buildings and the Guardian newspaper.

No, I'm not Paul Krugman---I just know how to read and look at data and legitimate sources, which is more than I can say for the posters on this thread who are talking about race. Which is how i know that you don't look at data, because if you did, you would know that 25% of international migrants in Europe originated from Asia.

Also, grandpa, I know enough about this newfangled internet to know that there are multiple people posting in this thread, and that if you think you know who is posting and that you're only talking to one person, they should up your meds...

[Anonymous]

Many people in the U.S. assume the European middle class has a higher standard of living than the American middle class, but the reality is more complicated. In much of Europe, a typical middle class family often cannot afford a detached single family home and may rent apartments long term, often without features Americans consider standard, like central air conditioning.

If you take away the glamour of "it's Europe" with the old buildings and history, the lifestyle expectations and average disposable income in many countries are lower than even poorer U.S. states like Mississippi. In some ways, the differences are surprising. There are parts of Mississippi where the average person has better access to cosmetic dental care and straighter teeth than in parts of the UK or Europe.

There are absolutely unhealthy lifestyle issues in the U.S., including obesity, but that is different from saying the healthcare system itself is universally worse or that Americans are broadly poorer in material living standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

French median income is 23k euros a year, or $27,000. American median income is $63,000. Median means half make more, half makes less.

Income is a narrow measure. Life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the USA and 9 years higher than in Alabama and France has much higher literacy than the USA (#PaulKrugman). They also have far more vacation time and mandated parental leave of approximately 1 year where the USA has none.

So you now don't deny Americans are much richer? You're just coming up with different metrics, aka changing goalposts. I have no idea what literacy rates means in this context. It's a straw man argument that serves no real purpose beyond a misleading "gotcha" that also tells us nothing. I delved into the matter and it seems more complex than you might think. France boasts a 99% literary rate, officially, but at same time French reports acknowledges at least 10% of adults struggle with basic literacy and as many as 28% score below level 1 in literacy, meaning they struggle with complex information. Which means using the American definition of literacy, its not really that different. And I don't doubt that a lot of it also comes down to how each country captures its ESL populations.

The point about life expectancy is real and the only serious one worth exploring. Americans by and large have national problems with obesity and chronic diseases. But those reflect lifestyle, not a failure of health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

French median income is 23k euros a year, or $27,000. American median income is $63,000. Median means half make more, half makes less.

Income is a narrow measure. Life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the USA and 9 years higher than in Alabama and France has much higher literacy than the USA (#PaulKrugman). They also have far more vacation time and mandated parental leave of approximately 1 year where the USA has none.

So you now don't deny Americans are much richer? You're just coming up with different metrics, aka changing goalposts. I have no idea what literacy rates means in this context. It's a straw man argument that serves no real purpose beyond a misleading "gotcha" that also tells us nothing. I delved into the matter and it seems more complex than you might think. France boasts a 99% literary rate, officially, but at same time French reports acknowledges at least 10% of adults struggle with basic literacy and as many as 28% score below level 1 in literacy, meaning they struggle with complex information. Which means using the American definition of literacy, its not really that different. And I don't doubt that a lot of it also comes down to how each country captures its ESL populations.

The point about life expectancy is real and the only serious one worth exploring. Americans by and large have national problems with obesity and chronic diseases. But those reflect lifestyle, not a failure of health care.

If you try reading, you can look at the literature about GDP per capita not being a measure that fully captures well-being--and measures of how health, happy and educated a society is are also important measuress of well-being. There are tons of articles using something called "google."

If you want to be in a place that has the highest income, fine, the USA has higher income than Europe. But if you choose to ignore that despite being poorer, European citizens are living up to 10 years longer than their American counterparts, are better educated on average (with literacy rates a proxy for education) and have more leisure time, that's a statement of what you value in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

French median income is 23k euros a year, or $27,000. American median income is $63,000. Median means half make more, half makes less.

Income is a narrow measure. Life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the USA and 9 years higher than in Alabama and France has much higher literacy than the USA (#PaulKrugman). They also have far more vacation time and mandated parental leave of approximately 1 year where the USA has none.

So you now don't deny Americans are much richer? You're just coming up with different metrics, aka changing goalposts. I have no idea what literacy rates means in this context. It's a straw man argument that serves no real purpose beyond a misleading "gotcha" that also tells us nothing. I delved into the matter and it seems more complex than you might think. France boasts a 99% literary rate, officially, but at same time French reports acknowledges at least 10% of adults struggle with basic literacy and as many as 28% score below level 1 in literacy, meaning they struggle with complex information. Which means using the American definition of literacy, its not really that different. And I don't doubt that a lot of it also comes down to how each country captures its ESL populations.

The point about life expectancy is real and the only serious one worth exploring. Americans by and large have national problems with obesity and chronic diseases. But those reflect lifestyle, not a failure of health care.

That lower life expectancy in the USA is not linked to structural issues with our health care system, is your opinion, not a fact, and not a particularly well-educated opinion. Try reading some actual research articles that link Americans' lower life expectancy to access to health care:

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/whats-behind-shocking-u-s-life-expectancy-decline-and-what-to-do-about-it/
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are all far richer than we are, they have free education childcare elder care and healthcare.
Whoever thinks we are better off is insane.

How are they far richer than we all are? Over and over on this thread, people have posted median and average salaries that show you're incorrect.

Education is free in USA. We also have medicaid if you are poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:France has higher and more evenly distributed median household income. So the average person is arguably better off in France. But the socialism that ensures that has probably restricted their growth in terms of industry and technology, which we have in abundance, thanks to the 1%, but whose benefit does not trickle down to our majority. It’s a tricky dance to encourage free markets but also encourage benefits for all. No one has a perfect model for this.

French median income is 23k euros a year, or $27,000. American median income is $63,000. Median means half make more, half makes less.

Income is a narrow measure. Life expectancy in France is 4.7 years higher than in the USA and 9 years higher than in Alabama and France has much higher literacy than the USA (#PaulKrugman). They also have far more vacation time and mandated parental leave of approximately 1 year where the USA has none.

Alabama and France do not have comparable ethnic demographics. It's a false comparison.

[Anonymous]

Healthcare here is free if you are poor or makes you poor if you already aren't. Its a set up for top 10% and bottom 10%, rest are screwed.

[Anonymous]

Social healthcare system for all would make USA truly affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EU Kids end HS being fluent in at least three languages. Education counts.

That's completely due to geography and necessity. If you drive 5 hours from France, you have the possibility of driving through 4 different countries speaking 4 different languages. This is not the case in the USA where you can drive 2000 miles and everyone still speaks English (for the most part).

What four countries do you think you're driving through from France? Is that just your way of justifying being monolingual? You don't pick up another language at a gas station on your way, you know.

The part of Switzerland that borders France speaks...guess what, French. The part of Belgium that borders France, speaks....guess what, French. The French in fact are pretty well known for being just like Americans--monolingual.

The farther north you go, the better their language ability. The Dutch, Germans, Danes, Swedes, etc all speak more than one language well. The rest, not so much.